Downie Fined For Leaving Bench in Anisimov Incident
Damian Cristido at TampaBay.com reports that the Lightning's Steve Downie was only fined, not suspended, for leaving the Tampa Bay bench to engage Artem Anisimov after the Ranger winger's "rifle" celebration on Thursday night.Cristido adds that he did not know how much the fine was but that the max fine is $2,500.
Here's Downie on the fine...
"It's what I expected," Downie said. "It is what it is. You've got to respect the decision. It's not my call but I expect what he did and what he said."
For the reason why Downie was fined and not suspended click the "Read More" tab below.
Erik Erlendsson at the Tampa Tribune explains that because the NHL deemed Downie was on the ice as result of a legal line change, he was able to avoid the automatic 10-game suspension.
...what a joke. There is no way that was a legal line change. Check it out here:
At the nine second mark you can clearly see Downie just jump on the ice...
Remember to follow me on Twitter & Facebook or e-mail me at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .
In no way is that a legal line change. He was sitting on the bench, and once he saw the "scrum" break out, he rushed into it. End of conversation, he should have received the automatic 10 game suspension.
i dont get the fact that he was deemed legal...so why even fine him? if it was illegal, automatic 10 game suspension. it was was legal, then there should not have been any disciplinary action
Because it was against the rangers. If it was against the penguins or another one of the NHL loved ones then he would have gotten 10 games
good to see the NHL can follow the rule book whenever they want, but expect the players to follow it all the time. Bullcrap!
There was a pretty good explanation from Kerry Fraser's "Hey Ref!" article about this whole incident on the TSN site. I don't believe it warranted 10 games but he did deserve some form of punishment.
Anyone else looking forward to the next game against the Bolts!? Just a shame Avery probably won't be involved :(
While he did just jump o the ice... he was already sitting on the boards waiting for his man to get to the bench. Its not like he was sitting on the bench and jumped up and over because of the scrum. He was already more than 1/2 way onto the ice during what would have been a legal line change.
I have no problem with this ruling.
1 Like
Bullshit. He was clearly NOT on the ice, take a look at the box score which does not list him as on the ice at the time of the goal (straight from the NHL, BTW). It's an "automatic" 10 game suspension, unless of course Shanny's pal is the GM of the club in question. @Chris_in_MA
@HZimm Are you for real? Watch the video, man. I never said he was already on the ice. I said they were mid-line-change.
He is sitting on the boards waiting to get on the ice. It was mid-line-change... which explains why the box score doesnt have him on the ice. His man wasnt off yet, but that doesnt mean the change wasnt happening.
You can see it clear as day in the video that the line-change was in progress. Take off your Red/White/Blue goggles and watch what the rest of the hockey world saw.
@Chris_in_MA@HZimm@skechy Wow I thought Chris was winning the arguement for a moment, lol. But then I do remember reading the wording of the rule. Did it it really warrant a 10 game suspension? That's what the rules apparently say, but I believe that it's too harsh of a result in this case. Especially since Downie didn't exactly have the NHL rulebook open in his hands at the time when he jumped off the boards. That last part of the rule is easy to overlook, and,as shown in this case, hard to enforce and easy to miss.
Downie clearly made a dumb mistake and got off very lucky.
Still, even though it's an old outdone issue, my real problem of concern with what happened here is Artie's unsportsmanlike penalty and NYR ending up shorthanded.
Agreed. The wording of the rule is: "70.1 Leaving the Bench – No player or goalkeeper may leave the players’ or penalty bench at any time during an altercation or for the purpose of starting an altercation. Substitutions made prior to the altercation shall be permitted provided the players so substituting do not enter the altercation."
So, even if the sub was made prior to the alteration, it is still illegal. I rest my case.@skechy @Chris_in_MA
@Chris_in_MA@HZimm If a guy is just sitting on the bench talking to his other teammates and all of sudden looks up jumps on the ice skates directly towards the altercation and starts punching someone in the face i think i can win the argument that yes it was a legal change, but he did indeed jump on the ice from his seated position to get involved in that altercation. He wasn't just skating in circles and happen to skate into a altercation.
@HZimm His purpose was to replace the injured Connelly. As evident in the video. He was coming over the boards when the play was whistled dead.
The difference here is that youre trying to argue something that cant be proved. Intent.
I dont disagree that he jumped off the boards after the delay so he could get in the scrum. but that doesnt mean he was on the ice illegally
Whatever. The play was whistled dead by way of a goal WELL before he got on the ice. Exactly what was the purpose of his getting on the ice if not to enter the altercation? @Chris_in_MA
@HZimm The key words are 'for the purpose of'. It cannot be proved that he got on the ice 'for the purpose of' engaging in an altercation because he was actively part of a legal line change.
Conversely, it can be proved that he was part of a legal line and did not enter the ice surface prematurely.
I am arguing that he was not on the ice. You are arguing that it was a legal line change, which is moot. Conversely, the fat that his skates were not on the ice at the time of stoppage and beyond is absolutely relevant. @Chris_in_MA
@HZimm And for whatever its worth, the fact that I currently live in MA has nothing to do with my stance on this issue.
Im first and foremost a fan of the game of hockey. I dont let my fan-hood cloud my vision when it comes to matters that involve my favorite team.
I proudly wear my Rangers gear constantly and do not hesitate to don my jersey(s) when the Rangers are visiting Boston.
@HZimm Where is the false logic? He was entering the play legally prior to the scrum. The fact that the scrum started prior to his skates touching the ice are irrelevant because he was part of a legal line change and did not prematurely enter the playing surface.
Can you prove otherwise that he was NOT part of a legal line change?
No, you're wrong when you are making an argument on false logic. The fact that we Rangers fans are all in agreement that you are wrong is obviously us ganging up on a hated... ummm... Rangers fan... wait a minute... what? Are you really a Bruins fan in disguise?? @Chris_in_MA
So Im wrong because NYR fans say Im wrong? Thats laughable. Times like these are when Im embarrassed to be an NYR fan.
Being a fan of the game is more important to me than being a fan of the Rangers. Sorry I have no qualms about admitting when the right call was made even when it isnt in favor of the Rangers@HZimm
Now it's time for you to get over it. You are wrong, and that is clear to everyone but you. Out. @Chris_in_MA
@HZimm He left the bench as part of a legal line change and not for the purpose of engaging in the altercation (per the rules*). I dont understand what is so difficult to understand about that?
*We all can tell why he really jumped off the bench. But you cant 'prove' intent.
If he was not "on the ice" then he did in fact "leave the bench for the purpose of... engaging in an altercation". That's all I have to say - apparently we agree to disagree. It's all academic at this point anyhow
@HZimm Being 'on the ice' is irrelevant when the play was stopped and Downie was the intended replacement.
He was replacing an injured player he did not 'leave the bench for the purpose of starting or engaging in an altercation.'
Yes, he waited and didnt get on right away... and it wasnt until the scrum started, but the fact that there was or wasnt a delay is irrelevant when it comes to the rule. By the definition of a legal line change, Downie was entitled to be on the ice.
@HZimm Except that his skates didnt need to be on the ice for it to be considered a 'legal line change'
1 Like
The delay has everything to do with it. Both skates had yet to hit the ice, therefore he was not considered "on the ice" at the time of the stoppage. I'm over it already, in fact I suspected that nothing would be done, but I still believe that he deserved more disciplinary action than was levied - none. @Chris_in_MA
@HZimm The 'delay' has absolutely NOTHING to do with the rules and is completely irrelevant.
Connelly was already at the bench just as the goal was scored and Downie was the intended replacement. He saw the goal get scored and didnt deem it necessary to rush on the ice. The Bolts, at the time, were entitled to have 5 players on the ice. Thus, automatic suspension for 'leaving the bench' does not apply here.
Get over it.
1 Like
He was ready for the line change, I agree. Then the goal was scored. Then, after a delay, he saw the melee, then he came onto the ice and escalated it. There was at least a 4-5 second delay in between the play stoppage and him stepping onto the ice. And in this game, 4-5 seconds might as well be a full minute.@Chris_in_MA
@Chris_in_MA Dude, what's up with you being a rational Rangers fan? No need for that garbage on this blog. lol
2 Like
@KevinDeLury@Chris_in_MA I gotta agree with Kevin here. Mayor Bloomberg should step in and recommend assault charges. ;)
@KevinDeLury Sorry Kev. Force of habit. Wont happen again, sir
*peers around suspiciously while crossing fingers behind back*
